6 ms·

That doesn’t change the fact that leadership then must either: * Accept the claim that the company is and has been supporting white supremacy, de facto surrend

That doesn’t change the fact that leadership then must either: * Accept the claim that the company is and has been supporting white supremacy, de facto surrendering decisions on anything an employee suggests might support white supremacy * Disagree with the claim The redefinition of white supremacy (as you’ve defined it) is a bad faith rhetorical tool designed to create these kind of situations. Leaders are under no obligation to appease employees acting in bad faith.

mumblemumble 5y ago
So, two thoughts: First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Second, saying that white supremacy is present in the company is not the same thing as saying that the company is run by white supremacists. The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense.
- moduspol 5y ago
  > First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why this is a false dichotomy, and what other options there are. > Second You cannot run a company that perpetuates white supremacy without implicitly supporting that white supremacy, whether you know it or not. I've already been clearly told that malice and intent are not required. Or are you genuinely going to make the case that "someone who supports white supremacy" is not interchangeable with "white supremacist?" I'm not interested in debating your personal redefinitions of terms.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    Honestly, nah. Since we've already touched on the subject of "bad faith rhetorical tools," getting on other people's cases for acknowledging that the English language is soaked in polysemy isn't exactly an encouraging sign. It's difficult to have an enjoyable conversation with someone who's brandishing a cape.
    - moduspol 5y ago
      No good faith conversations starts by redefining the other side as white supremacists. But I think you know that.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        But no one's done that. You keep claiming the other side is doing that, but they keep disagreeing with you. You're ascribing actions that aren't done and proceeding to take offense.
        moduspol 5y ago
        From the comment I responded to: > The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense. The terms don’t in the dictionary, so there’s no way to continue the discussion without debating what this commenter thinks these terms mean. This isn’t my first rodeo, and we can all see what’s happening here.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        The first step to knowing what someone else thinks is to ask. You seem to have skipped that step, and when they clarified, you disagreed. Who are you to say what they think? Again this is all you projecting thoughts onto other people.
        moduspol 5y ago
        There's no value in debating bad faith personal redefinitions of words lobbed as insults. If I called you a pedophile, I imagine you wouldn't be super expectant of a productive conversation about my unique definition of the word or how I think it applies to you. You wouldn't care what I thought, because if I cared what you thought, I wouldn't have smeared you as a pedophile.
        joshuamorton 5y ago

mumblemumble 5y ago

So, two thoughts: First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Second, saying that white supremacy is present in the company is not the same thing as saying that the company is run by white supremacists. The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense.

moduspol 5y ago
> First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why this is a false dichotomy, and what other options there are. > Second You cannot run a company that perpetuates white supremacy without implicitly supporting that white supremacy, whether you know it or not. I've already been clearly told that malice and intent are not required. Or are you genuinely going to make the case that "someone who supports white supremacy" is not interchangeable with "white supremacist?" I'm not interested in debating your personal redefinitions of terms.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  Honestly, nah. Since we've already touched on the subject of "bad faith rhetorical tools," getting on other people's cases for acknowledging that the English language is soaked in polysemy isn't exactly an encouraging sign. It's difficult to have an enjoyable conversation with someone who's brandishing a cape.
  - moduspol 5y ago
    No good faith conversations starts by redefining the other side as white supremacists. But I think you know that.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      But no one's done that. You keep claiming the other side is doing that, but they keep disagreeing with you. You're ascribing actions that aren't done and proceeding to take offense.
      - moduspol 5y ago
        From the comment I responded to: > The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense. The terms don’t in the dictionary, so there’s no way to continue the discussion without debating what this commenter thinks these terms mean. This isn’t my first rodeo, and we can all see what’s happening here.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        The first step to knowing what someone else thinks is to ask. You seem to have skipped that step, and when they clarified, you disagreed. Who are you to say what they think? Again this is all you projecting thoughts onto other people.
        moduspol 5y ago
        There's no value in debating bad faith personal redefinitions of words lobbed as insults. If I called you a pedophile, I imagine you wouldn't be super expectant of a productive conversation about my unique definition of the word or how I think it applies to you. You wouldn't care what I thought, because if I cared what you thought, I wouldn't have smeared you as a pedophile.
        joshuamorton 5y ago